Layman Summary:
How would we feel if aircraft certification had no load limit requirements? You wouldn’t know if it had been tested to +3.8/-1.52 only that the wings haven’t come off yet and the airplane is pretty well maintained? Would anyone have a problem continuing on after a jolt of clear air turbulence made you wonder just how strong it is? Or should regulations like age limits, be more like max demonstrated crosswinds and take on the role of test pilot 10 feet off the ground?
There are convincing arguments for moving the retirement age chains down the field, but if the FAA is as committed to safety as they would like us to believe, there’s got to be testing to prove that safety can be maintained.
Although this is an interesting development, and may work out for a country as large as Argentina with a fair amount of domestic air traffic, ICAO Annex 1, Art 2.1.10 still limits Contracting States, having issued pilot licences, from permitting the holders thereof to act as pilot of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 60th birthday or, in the case of operations with more than one pilot, their 65th birthday.
I thought this was a union promulgated rule. Safety was the scapegoat.
I learned early on not to take something I loved and turn it into a job, so I don’t have a dog in this fight. However …
One would think that there is plenty of data relating to age-related accident rates in all sorts of commercial activities, from OTR trucking to cardiac surgery, that would address this issue. It’s patently obvious that FAA age-related limitations are arbitrary, or at best statistical derivations, that by definition are invalid for any particular professional pilot. Primarily, they are easy criteria for a government agency to codify into regulation.
My aircraft (SEL, SEH) have few “life-limited” components, with precise hours at which they must be replaced. The vast majority of them are “on condition”, as determined by regular inspection. Even their most problematic component, the “nut behind the stick”, is an “on-condition” part, whose limit is now “inspected” by the medical professional most familiar with it.
Furthermore, an even more dispassionate group is already applying (albeit crudely) a complex statistical analysis of the danger that an older pilot might pose: the insurance industry. Population statistics are a poor predictor of risk for a particular pilot, but better than a number that someone pulled out of their nether region decades ago. It’s high time we made commercial pilots an “on condition” component.
1 reply
That’s a valid argument as long as the frequency of the “on condition” inspections increase as the pilot component ages and the relevant objective data meets an accepted standard.
For example, a pilot component exhibiting a BP of 200/160 would require more frequent inspections than one of similar age with a BP of 120/80.
My insurance company (AVEMCO) requires that pilots that they insure who are over 75 yo within the previous 365 days of flying as PIC have at least a Basic Med physical and a Flight Review in the insured aircraft. I am doing this and it does not seem unreasonable to me.
150% agree . Thanks RAF .its not the ship ,it’s the men who sail her !
“provided they meet health and competency standards” — I read the Argentinian documents, and that’s exactly what it says. Additionally, this regulation applies only within Argentina and does not fall under ICAO’s jurisdiction.
This Lake Wohlford Pilot loves you raf
Does the frequency of FAA inspection increase with the hours on your aircraft? Even if you are using it for commercial purposes, and excluding certain very specific items (which I can’t afford, like a turbo) the whole AC is inspected at the same frequency depending on its usage class, regardless its age or hours-in-service. But no, if the “component” is not showing abnormal behavior/wear/leakage/etc. there is no reason to mandate more frequent inspections simply due to hours in service.
And to speak to your specific example, if your pilot component were to exhibit such an elevated BP, it should be addressed the same way that any squawk would be: see you personal A&P. If the problem is addressed, there is no reason to increase the frequency of an annual physical, unless your A&P doesn’t trust you.
1 reply
In some cases there are increased inspections as components age. Fielded equipment experience may discover that certain components or sub-components need additional inspection or more frequent maintenance than originally specified or expected.
There also can be expensive “service life extensions” that must be incorporated to extend the useful life of a component or sub-component. These service life extensions can have their own inspection intervals and maintenance requirements.
I’m currently still an active 737 captain at age 70. The two closest countries also have rescinded their age limits so I can still fly there when rostered, I did have to surrender my widebody role owing to the ICAO restrictions in place more broadly.
The medical requirements get stricter after 65 with annual stress ECG evaluation, ophthalmology, audio, blood work. The simulator training is the same however. The (legacy) airline does not apply other conditions, and lately I often fly with new F/Os including first day on the line guys.
At my airline we even have a couple of guys starting a new type course at 72 although most pilots have been retiring in their early 60’s
1 reply
Australia. New Zealand and Indonesia both allow 65+.
I think that Japan allows 67. Elsewhere in the west Pacific are no-go for me. That includes Fiji, New Caledonia and the Oakland FIR.
I have to think about that pilot (Brazilian or Argentinian ?) who got a sex-change so he could retire 5y earlier. Hope he/she got what ‘they’ wanted but imagine you go through that (to screw the system) and then the system changes the retirement age and screws you. And there you are…
There’s an interesting inconsistency in age limits. A pilot responsible for 200 passengers must retire at 65, but no similar age restriction applies to those in positions of immense responsibility, like leading a nation or managing nuclear codes.
The current age limits for pilots, air traffic controllers, and federal law enforcement, and others, are based on common sense and fairness. They aim to find a good balance: making sure people have enough experience to do their jobs well while recognizing that age can eventually affect physical and mental sharpness. These limits aren’t random; they’re backed by research and real-world experience to keep the public safe.
For example, pilots and controllers retire at a certain age because their work requires quick thinking and precise actions, and even a small decline can make a big difference. The rules protect both the professionals and the people they serve.
When it comes to the presidency, similar age limits could help. Running a country is as demanding as flying a plane or managing air traffic—it requires sharp decision-making and stamina. Right now, there’s a minimum age of 35 for the presidency, but no upper limit. This inconsistency raises questions: If we think it’s important for other high-pressure roles to have both minimum and maximum age limits, shouldn’t we consider the same for the president? A leader should be as prepared and capable as the professionals we rely on for safety in the air and on the ground.
1 reply
ALPA didn’t even bother with the safety scapegoat. The leaders danced around an implied, and non-existent vote that the members didn’t support it to retain power. I never got a vote and my 30 years of dues have never been in arrears.
Theirs never been such a large group of a younger demographic in ALPA before, and this is straight union politics.
The reasonable person would think science and medical fitness would be factors in the discussion, but sadly it’s all the politics of retaining power in the world’s largest pilot union.
The internal machinations of ALPA is the only factor driving the mandatory retirement age and the average observer has no window into that, so they mistakenly assume it has something to do with safety and common sense.
Ooh, careful, Raf. Don’t poke the bear! 
Kidding aside, your point is valid. If fact, I think that the Presidency may well require greater stamina owing to the fact that it is a 24/7/365 position with little down time. However, I would also posit that age limits should be equally applied to Congress and the Supreme Court! Considering the number of fossils inhabiting the halls of Congress, the Capitol building could be labeled as an archeological dig site!
Again, kidding aside, many of the age limitation standards in use today were done at a time when the average lifespan was considerably shorter than it is today. They are also used, as other have said, because a set age is a simple and predictable end point that is equally applied to everyone in that profession. Setting an “on condition” limitation is probably much fairer, but it requires both the government and the medical profession to establish physical and mental ability rules that would be constantly contested by someone who was just rejected during an exam. Given the choice between easy and fair, the government will always choose the easy route.